2007 PLP 2903 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3329-B of- 2006 had been filed by Muhammad Boota and Nazir Ahmad accused in case F.I.R. No. 106 dated 29-4-2006 under sections 302, 324, 337-L(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 148, 149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Chabkalan District Khanewal, whereas Criminal Miscellaneous No.3282-B of 2006 has been filed by Muhammad Bakhsh, Muhammad Aslam, Khadim Hussain and Ahmad Bakhsh accused. in cross-version recorded in the above mentioned F.I.R. through Rupt No.18 under sections 324, 337-L(ii), 337-A(i), 148, 149, P.P.C. As both these petitions arise out of same facts and circumstances, therefore, are being disposed of through this single order.

2. Both the sides allege aggression against each other: However, allegation against Boota and Nazir petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous'No.3329-B of 2006 is that .Muhammad Boota gave Sota below on the right wrist of the complainant and also on his left shoulder, whereas Nazir accused petitioner is alleged to have caused Sota blow on the right shoulder of Mst. Fatima .Bibi wife of the complainant. Similarly, in cross-version (Criminal Miscellaneous No.3282-B of 2006), allegation against Muhammad Bakhsh petitioner is that he fired a rifle shot which hit leg of Imran injured; rifle shot of Muhammad Aslam petitioner hit back of Imran injured; fire by Khadim Hussain hit complainant's brother on his back, whereas Ahmad Bakhsh petitioner also fired which hit on the buttocks of Nazir injured.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners Muhammad Boota and Nazir that they did not cause any injury to the deceased Noor Bibi who expired in an ordinary course of nature after a period of three months of the occurrence and according to her post mortem report cause of her death was septic. Further submits that none of the injuries attributed to the petitioners falls within prohibitory clause, thus they are entitled to grant of bail, as question of their vicarious liability within the meaning the .meaning of section 324 P.P.C.. cannot be determined at this stage, especially when in view of cross-version got .recorded by them against the accused petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No,3282-B of 2006, the question as to " which of the two parties was aggressor can only be determined after recording of evidence. It is lastly argued that petitioners are behind the bars since 20-5-2006 but trial has not yet commenced.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Miscel?laneous No.3282-B of 2006 argues that .Muhammad Bakhsh, etc. have been falsely involved in this case, inasmuch as, about the injuries attributed to them the Medical Board has opined that possibility of fabrication could not be ruled out. Further that cross-version against these petitioners is nothing but a counter-blast to circumvent the effect of the F.I.R., otherwise, the petitioner did not cause any injury as disclosed in the cross-version and finally that all the injuries attributed to theirs either constitute bailable offence or the offence not falling within prohibitory clause; therefore, Muhammad Bakhsh, etc. petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail, as compared to Muhammad Boota and Nazir accused who are specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and are vicariously liable for the death of Mst. Noor Bibi who though died after about three months of the occurrence yet according to the post-mortem report the cause of death is result of septic due to the injuries caused to her by the accused of the F.I.R.

5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Both the parties alleged aggression against each other and as to which of the versions is correct, cannot be determined at this stage without recording of evidence. Though in the case recorded through F.I.R., section

302. P.P.C. has also been added but admittedly Boota and Nazir did not cause any injury to deceased Mst. Noor Bibi, therefore, their vicarious liability to the extent of section 302 or 324 P.P.C. is also open to further inquiry. As regards offence under section 337-L(ii), P.P.C: the same is bailable, whereas offence under sections 337-F(iii) and 337-F(v), P.P.C: both. do not fall within prohibitory clause.

7. Similarly, the allegation against Muhammad Bakhsh, etc. petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3282-B of 2006 A also do not constitute any offence falling within prohibitory clause. Offences under section 337-A(i) and 337-L(ii) P.P.C. are bailable and the injuries attributed to theirs also are open to further inquiry in the light of subsequent .report of the Medical Board expressing doubt about their genuineness. So far as offence under section. 324 P.P.C is concerned, the same cannot be presumed at this stage which requires recording of evidence so as to attract its ingredients.

8. The upshot of above discussion is that both these petitions are allowed and Muhammad Boota, Nazir Ahmad petitioners in Criminal, Miscellaneous No.3329-B of 2006; as well as Muhammad Bakhsh, Muhammad Aslam, Khadim Hussain and Ahmad Bakhsh petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3282-A of 2006, are admitted to post-arrest bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like' amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-204/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted